"Poll Suggestion: Less arbitrary moderation" Topic

Moderation of TMP is all over the shop at the moment. We have forum rules but they don't seem to be enforced equally nor are they even used in justification for arbitrary bans/lockings and so on.

Eg – During the ladyboys kerfuffle Angel Barracks was publically insulted by Bill on these forums and had his account locked. Reason? He also posts on Frothers and was therefore tainted with "filth". NB Bill himself is a Frother of longstanding. The asst. editors are also Frothers.

Smokeyroan referred to other people as subhuman but this apparently did not fall foul of the group attack rule because Smokey had been provoked by Frothers because they responded to the homophobic threat of violence he posted on their forum (he's a Frother too, see?!)…..

…but when cat herder pointed out that this was an example of favouritism his account was locked…

…Fonthill Hoser had his account locked for mentioning Bill's other website.

So how about a poll with this as the question "Should TMP be moderated according to impartial enforcement of the published forum rules?"

If I throw a 'double six' will this ship finally sink?

A little more pot stirring I see…

Maybe, but he raises a valid point. Moderation here has been rather "variable" here recently.

Good point David. And too true I am sad to say. I have pointed out the same But I doubt a poll will change anything. As others have pointed out bills house bills rules.it is a sad thing to watch this sight. So many of the good people who I enjoyed reading and learned from as gone.

A little more pot stirring I see…

No, genuine annoyance that a resource that was a huge boon to me when I started gaming has seriously lost its mojo. Professional. moderation would be a good first step to getting TMP back to being the essential wargames forum.

Angel Barracks locked his own account, if I remember correctly.

Smokeyroan was given a warning, which I thought was sufficient, considering Frothers was provoking him. If he repeats the behavior, the punishment will escalate.

I don't remember exactly what cat herder posted, but if he feels I was unfair, he can discuss it with an editor.

Similarly, I believe Fonthill Hoser is discussing his situation with Editor Julia.

Good lord people give it a rest. What is screwing with TMP is people like you.

Look in the mirror long and hard before posting crap threads like this.

Reference to Doms post before he deleted it – impartial moderation might be a pipe dream but if it were put to a poll and carried at least it would communicate a preference for trying to br so to the assorted editors. OTOH it might not carry and TMP can abandon any pretence and moderation can be done on editorial whim.

This isn't a democracy. It's a business.

Oh it's a democracy when it suits Bill. Renaming the NMB board anyone?

Impartial moderation and fair and consistent application of the rules are essential for everyone to feel that they are part of a ‘community'. The list of partial, illogical and sometimes downright unfair decisions made here seems to grow by the day. I won't list them but most of you will know what they were. You hardly dare complain about anything now in case it is considered to be Harassment. Don't use sarcasm because that is Trolling.

The apparently random nature of the punishments has annoyed a number of members, myself included (and apparently Dom too, for a short while!). Remember that Bill has twice posted recently that he was "too busy" to DH people who otherwise should have been. If you'd been on the receiving end of a DH you'd be rightly aggrieved to see that others escaped because the Editors were "too busy".

I don't mind that people get ‘punished', I just wish that the penalties were handed out fairly and, more importantly, seen to be handed out fairly.

There is a continuum between totally fair and impartial moderation (which, let's be honest, is unlikely and impossible) and "Take THAT you bastards!"
I think we veer too close to the latter.

You know how kids are warned about not buying Ritalin off other kids?

It's like that.

Ditto.

The Miniatures Page. That's what this place is for and, thanks to the diverse and wide ranging experience and knowledge of the community here, that brings a huge set of resources to all of us.

So how about a poll with this as the question "Should TMP be moderated according to impartial enforcement of the published forum rules?"

When was the last time anyone visiting for and commenting on anything related to Miniatures was moderated unfairly or otherwise?

I'd love to hear what Captain Canada has to say about this. But, since he got locked for beseeching – yes, that's the word I want – the Editor not to continue with a thread about how to game the ISIS affair, he can't.

That's the thread that caused so many Dawghausings. Why, yes, the Editor began that particular thread.

Was the good Captain offensive in his posting? Well, it's gone now. My recollection is that it was firm but polite. It was clearly meant as a "Don't drive into the ditch" suggestion.

I have to be honest, taking seriously someone with the name "Frothers Did It And Ran Away" using words like 'Genuine' 'Annoyance' and 'Professional' is proving difficult for me.

Then again, taking someone seriously with the name 'Fizzypickles' is quite a challenge also.

Seriously? Can we knock this crap off, please?

Bill,

Calling people "sub human animals", which is what Smokeyroan did, should be punished rather more severely than a telling off, regardless of the provocation, most of which was made up by Smokeyroan anyway. I suspect that most other people would have been DH'd for it, especially considering the reasonable comments that people have recently been DH'd for.

The call for a poll on impartial moderation is a sensible one; the moderation here is becoming farcical with its evident bias and inconsistencies.

Jurgen

Oh --

On Ritalin: Sorry if anyone didn't understand this reference. Some years ago one of the Things We Should Worry About was ADHD kids selling their Ritalin to kids who didn't need it. It meant the ADHD kids ran around like maniacs (having not taken their meds) and the other kids got a strange and unpredictable pharmaceutical high, having taken someone else's meds. They all acted like lunatics. Teachers took Advil in double doses.

I hope you can see the comparison.

Logocide's posts have been removed – banned member's sock puppet

The call for a poll on impartial moderation is a sensible one

And that will be judged how? More Polls?

Calling people "sub human animals", which is what Smokeyroan did, should be punished rather more severely than a telling off, regardless of the provocation…

We simply disagree. (Maybe I have more insight into how it feels to be a Frothers target…)

Was the good Captain offensive in his posting?

Well, he did suggest a game based on hunting down a certain minority…

Maybe I have more insight into how it feels to be a Frothers target…

And why should that make any difference to your moderation? Whether or not you have any sympathy or association with Member 'X' should not affect how Member 'X' is treated if they break the rules. It's akin to the judge letting you off because you are both members of the same club. It's just basically wrong and unfair. Can't you see that, and can't you understand how that makes some other members feel?

But if that is the way you intend to moderate the site then why not just come out and say so? Then we'll all know where we stand and we can save all this to and fro.

Captain Canada's suggestion was very obviously meant as an ironic comparison. He clearly meant that if TMP members were going to discuss a topic that many members found distasteful, we might as well go the whole hog.

I got that immediately. I'd say I'm surprised you didn't, Bill, but clearly that's what all this criticism is all about. Some people think you are being deliberately unfair, but I don't believe that's the case. It's a matter of judgement. A moderator should be consistent, fair and make good calls.

Bill,

Moderation is supposed to be objective and impartial, not based on a feeling of sympathy for someone.

Jurgen

MJS thank you on the clarifaction of the Ritalin comment. I wasn't being obtuse I genuinely didn't understand the reference. As the comment to which I said ditto is now deleted it doesn't really show but that's what I get for being lazy when typing it.

And why should that make any difference to your moderation?

To quote from U.S. Supreme Justice Sotomayor (italics added):

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

It is not a matter of sympathy. It is a matter of understanding, based on experience.

Bill,

I'm glad that you came back on this one because for a minute I thought that perhaps you were going to dodge this. Though ultimately I live more in hope than expectation that you'll actually change your style one iota.

You've chosen a good quote, but it doesn't mean quite what you're reading into it. Incidentally I hope that you wont DH me for quoting more than three paragraphs in my defence. It's a bit difficult to make my case otherwise.

It was delivered as part of an address to the 'Raising the Bar' symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law in 2001. She was asserting that judges' identities will affect legal outcomes. Here is the full quote from that address.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

She's talking about gender and national origins affecting decisions, not whether being flamed on another hobby website is justification for being partial.

Judge Cedarbaum, Sotomayor noted,

"believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law."

So a different judge believes that you should set aside personal sympathies etc., and aspire to achieve fairness and integrity. That's all that some of us are asking for.

In the same address (2001) Sotomayor goes on to say.

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires.

Don't you, as judge and jury on TMP, owe the membership this same courtesy?

My last Sotomayor quote (since you chose her) comes from a forward to a 2007 book, "The International Judge". In a web article for the New York Times on May 14, 2009, Charlie Savage says

Judge Sotomayor seemed to put a greater emphasis on a need for judges to seek to transcend their identities, writing that "all judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial" and letting reason rule.

Finally, Socrates said

"Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.

She's talking about gender and national origins affecting decisions, not whether being flamed on another hobby website is justification for being partial.

She's also talking about how experience affects judges, which was precisely my point: that my previous experience gives me a useful perspective when it comes to meting out punishment for this offense.

So we can't expect any change then?

I don't expect this to last, but I find gaming genocide to be offensive. I did chose a topic directed to get bills attention. His overreaction and the vigorous defence of the same tells me that the round went home.

So bill please realize that your topics may have been as offensive to some as the aimed comment was for you. It was an appeal to your better nature. A shame it found no such target.

Delete if you must.

KAM